It’s certainly not the first time Barack Obama has shown his ignorance of American history; nor is it the most flagrant historical foul the president has committed.

Some of Obama’s previous flubs of historical fact have been so glaring that in a March 2012 piece for Real Clear Politics, Carl Cannon observed that our president:

…shares with his fellow Americans one of their most dubious national traits: a nonchalant disregard for historical accuracy.

In an age when Twitter and other social media can propagate with distressing efficiency the fake Lincoln quote, the false Twain quip, the invented Ben Franklin advice, Obama is a president for our times.

And in an interview segment “for our times” — inasmuch as it featured a prominent piece of historical fiction offered by Obama that was unchallenged by the NBC reporter — the president made a comparison between what happens in the kitchen of his White House and that of President George Washington…

…except that Washington never lived in the White House…something one might reasonably expect a principal resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to know.

In an interview that aired prior to the Super Bowl on NBC — the president’s seventh chatty exchange year after year before the big game — “Today” co-host Savannah Guthrie visited with a casually dressed Obama in the executive mansion’s kitchen. One subject of their talk — the White House special ale brewed on site from honey out of the first lady’s garden beehives.

You can see Obama’s boast about the homemade brew that he said marked the first time “booze” has been made in the White House since George Washington did it…which he didn’t.

Last week, when “Fox & Friends” highlighted my most recent column, titled “Neutering Religious Holidays,” liberals came out of the woodwork to try to defend President Barack Obama’s record. So I decided to do a little research and see just how spiritual his past Thanksgiving addresses have been and compare them with the thoughts of our founding president, George Washington.

In 2013, Obama’s Thanksgiving address didn’t give a single mention of the Pilgrims, their Christian devotion, or thanks to God. He did, however, share his gratitude for the Native Americans and their “generosity during that first Thanksgiving.” He gave a litany of “we give thanks” lines, but none of them included faith.

In 2012, Obama didn’t make a single reference to the Pilgrims, their faith, their God, or his God, either. Instead, he explained that Thanksgiving is a nonspiritual day for his family and most Americans: “For us, like so many of you, this is a day full of family and friends, food and football. It’s a day to fight the overwhelming urge to take a nap — at least until after dinner. But most of all, it’s a time to give thanks, for each other and for the incredible bounty we enjoy.”

He made a single generic reference to our religious choice, but in a twisted progressive reinterpretation of Thanksgiving’s purpose: “Today we give thanks for blessings that are all too rare in this world — the ability to spend time with the ones we love, to say what we want, to worship as we please, to know that there are brave men and women defending our freedom around the globe, and to look our children in the eye and to tell them that here in America, no dream is too big if they’re willing to work for it.”

Obama declared that “Thanksgiving is a chance to put it all in perspective,” but that refocus didn’t include God or faith. Rather, it was just “to remember that, despite our differences, we are — and always will be — Americans first and foremost.”

Going back to 2011, I finally found a reference to the “first Thanksgiving” in Obama’s Thanksgiving address, but it was not exactly our traditional religious picture of the Pilgrims. In fact, it had nothing to do with the Pilgrims giving thanks to their Christian God for their survival and harvest. Rather, he said, “The very first Thanksgiving was a celebration of community during a time of great hardship.” He said the Pilgrims “had faith that tomorrow would be better than today,” but there was no mention of their faith in God. (Sounds as if Obama’s indoctrination as a community coordinator was successful under the tutelage of Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”)

In 2010, in a 700-word Thanksgiving address, the president didn’t give a single reference to any aspect of Thanksgiving’s religious history, its religious purpose, or gratitude in God, either, save the tip of his hat to “the God-given bounty of America.” Yet he didn’t forget to include the same old progressive drivel for Americans to consider our country’s journey “since that first Thanksgiving.”

In 2009, Obama started his reign with a Thanksgiving address that excluded any reference to a Pilgrim or Thanksgiving’s real history and any gratitude to God, though he did conclude with the words “God bless you.”

For five years, the president has flunked Thanksgiving Day remembrance and proclamation. Will he do so again in 2014?

Friends, what am I missing? If it were up to President Obama and his liberal minions across this land, Thanksgiving would turn into nothing more than a day of gratitude for things like his Affordable Care Act. We can’t allow that to happen.

We must continue to explain to our children and our children’s children about the religiously steeped history of Thanksgiving. We must tell them about the devoted Christian faith of the Pilgrims and how they crossed the Atlantic clutching their Geneva Bibles. They trusted in God and Jesus despite facing horrendous hardships and loss of life. They learned to “give thanks in everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:18), and the Almighty rewarded their perseverance and faith.

And along with all that believing history, we must remind our posterity what I said last week: Let us never forget there was once a time in the U.S. when people and even presidents weren’t afraid to stand for traditional values and encourage others to do the same.

If Obama is looking for a Thanksgiving address this Thursday to model, then I recommend he look no further than Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. I dare him to cite them even in part.

In fact, I’d call on all Americans to read one or both of their speeches in their entirety before they bow their heads in thanks for the Thanksgiving meal. You can easily find them through an Internet search.

Washington was the first president to issue a Thanksgiving Day proclamation, and his action wasn’t alone. In 1789, the first year of his presidency, Congress passed a resolution that asked Washington to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God.”

So on Oct. 3, 1789, President Washington gave a 450-word religious proclamation which contains, from beginning to end, nothing but a list of blessings for which the nation should be thankful to exclusively God.

Among those bountiful blessings is this partial list from Washington:

“Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor … now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be — That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks … and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions.”

COPYRIGHT 2014 CHUCK NORRIS

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

America is awake to the fact that the southern border of the United States remains unsecure, and the illegal aliens are invading on a daily basis. Yet, his house needs to be secure by building a wall of protection against the people of this country that he serves? How telling! What is legal for him seems to be illegal for the American people (Deuteronomy 17:14-20). He works for you! Why is he so heavily protected against his own people?

Anyone who travels to Washington, D.C. will know what I am talking about. When the president’s motorcade goes through town, every road is blocked off by armed officers; and any building the president enters is searched over with a fine-toothed comb.

The Secret Service was originally created in 1865 to suppress counterfeit currency. It had nothing to do with the president’s safety until 1907, when Congress passed the Sundry Civil Expenses Act, which now meant that two men would be in charge of the president’s safety full-time. The Secret Service now has 3,200 employees; and whenever the president leaves the White House, the Secret Service calls on other federal, state, and local agencies to heighten security measures.

Until Harry Truman’s presidency, former presidents were dropped off at their homes and were provided no special pension, security, or other benefits. They would become an average American citizen, just like those they served.

When president, Truman would take daily walks around Washington with a bodyguard or two in tow. American citizens could walk right up and shake his hand.

What has happened since then? When presidents work for the people, they feel safe enough to walk up and be friendly with their constituents. However, when they work for special interests and are being treated as crowned kings (which they are not), they suddenly feel that they need to be protected from their constituents. Is the writing on the wall? Yes, indeed it is.

Look at the parallel between President Washington and the current administration:

In 1789, the federal government under President Washington had 350 federal civilian employees; today, they number in the millions!

In 1832, the total federal budget was $11 million; in 2011, it was over $4 trillion!

Since 1900, the total number of government laws and regulations the average citizen is required to obey has increased an estimated 3,000 percent.

James Madison stated that “every word of (the Constitution) decides a question between power and liberty.” As the government increases control over the people, this leads to a corresponding decrease of individual liberty and responsibility.

The real problem is when all this power becomes centralized and is left unchecked by the public, then comes the rationale that “they have the badge, they must be right.”

Last week, I spoke about how President Barack Obama justified his prisoner swap of five senior Taliban leaders for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl by saying former military leaders and presidents, including George Washington, have engaged in prisoner of war exchange, too.

Obama’s exact words were: “This is what happens at the end of wars. That was true for George Washington; that was true for Abraham Lincoln; that was true for FDR; that’s been true of every combat situation — that at some point, you make sure that you try to get your folks back. And that’s the right thing to do.”

From that statement alone, I revealed how Obama’s made grievous errors in judgment by concluding that 1) the war is over, and 2) he was engaging in a prisoner exchange like George Washington — to take just a single example among his list of stellar leaders.

What Obama didn’t tell you regarding Washington and prisoner exchange during the Revolutionary War is that both countries — England and the U.S. — exchanged prisoners of war because both had “few facilities to accommodate large numbers of prisoners,” according to the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, whose mission it is “to preserve, restore, and manage the estate of George Washington to the highest standards and to educate visitors and people throughout the world about the life and legacies of George Washington.”

As far as buying Americans back from captivity at the price of enemy combatants, Obama needs to follow the example of Gen. Washington, who “made sure that no states holding military prisoners should trade a British soldier for an American citizen. Washington believed that this would have legitimized the British capture of more citizens, most of whom were largely defenseless.”

Though no one is minimizing the understandable elation of Bergdahl’s family over his release, George Washington would not have traded for him because he didn’t believe in trading prisoners of war until after the war was in fact over, treaties were signed, and hostilities ceased, lest he risk the capture of further American people for ransom.

Here are my two additional grievances with Obama’s prisoner of war exchange:

3) As the commander in chief, George Washington wouldn’t have completely undermined the very heart and soul of the military as Obama did with his prisoner exchange, especially in light of how it is a cardinal sin in military culture to abandon one’s post and platoon during war.

A little over a week ago, The Washington Post reported, “Ralph Peters, a retired lieutenant colonel and intelligence officer, wrote in National Review that a ‘fundamental culture clash’ exists between the president’s team and those in the armed forces, as reflected by (national security adviser Susan) Rice’s remarks on Bergdahl’s honor.”

“Both President Obama and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class,” Peters wrote. “They have no idea of how great a sin desertion in the face of the enemy is to those in our military. The only worse sin is to side actively with the enemy and kill your brothers in arms. This is not sleeping in on Monday morning and ducking Gender Studies 101.”

I have four colossal disagreements with how President Barack Obama cut the deal for the prisoner swap of five senior Taliban leaders for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl; the former, the White House itself admits, could “absolutely” rejoin terrorist cells.

Sure, I have far more than four issues with how it all went down — for example, the absolute avoidance and disregard of constitutional submission and congressional consent. But this administration seems to have little regard for proper protocol with anything, so I’m going to focus here on a few different angles of argument.

No one is overlooking or minimizing the understandable elation of Bergdahl’s family over his homecoming. But was there really no other military or negotiating option than to return five of the most hardened criminals and enemies of the U.S. to the battlefield, where at least six other soldiers gave their lives trying to rescue Bergdahl?

Our whole country — including those across the political spectrum, from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) — is asking: Why, in the midst of war, would Obama release five of the greatest anti-American terrorists in exchange for Bergdahl, who, according to several of his own military colleagues and superiors, abandoned his post and platoon and likely even became sympathetic with the Taliban mission?

Obama’s answer?

While in Poland, he said, “This is what happens at the end of wars.”

But what about if the war hasn’t ended, which is exactly where the U.S. is now? I don’t know whether Obama has noticed recently, but military personnel are still fighting on the battlefield. For the president, the war is in the past tense; but the battle continues in the present.

Duke University political science professor Peter Feaver, who served as a National Security Council special adviser under George W. Bush, explained to The Washington Post: “The deal the president struck is a deal you strike when the war’s over. The military, they’re thinking about, ‘We’re still fighting this war.’ For them the war’s very much still on, and the question of will we win or not is up for grabs.”

So this is the first of my four vehement objections to Obama’s handling of the prisoner of war swap:

1) The war is not over; military personnel are still fighting.

My second objection is found in the president’s further justification this past week: “This is what happens at the end of wars. That was true for George Washington; that was true for Abraham Lincoln; that was true for FDR; that’s been true of every combat situation — that at some point, you make sure that you try to get your folks back. And that’s the right thing to do.”

But is that true? Did Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt engage in prisoner swapping in the same vein as Obama? (Some have come to the president’s aid in saying so.)

Let’s just examine George Washington’s prisoner of war policy alone.

President Obama justifies his grounds for his prisoner exchange with the fact that Washington engaged in similar prisoner exchange with the British during the Revolutionary War. What Obama doesn’t tell you, however, is that both the Brits and the colonists exchanged prisoners of war because both had “few facilities to accommodate large numbers of prisoners,” according to the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association.